Apple has been granted a patent on techniques for unlocking a device based on facial recognition.
US Patent number 8,600,120, "Personal computing device control using face detection and recognition," describes a system in which a device is able to access its camera and authorize access based on recognizing your face.
In …

COMMENTS

Page:

Next up...

Apple is awarded a patent for dialling a number using a virtual number pad displayed on a touch screen device or, by using a virtual keyboard filtering out contacts whose name does not begin with the letters being pressed.

Right, time to sue the Android phone manufacturers.

Re: Right, time to sue the Android phone manufacturers.

I never thought I'd be coming to Apples defense on something, but did anyone actually follow the uspo link in the article? The paten was filed in 2008...just like their immigration system, it would appear the patent office is also backlogged...

Re: Right, time to sue the Android phone manufacturers.

Putting aside any possibility (almost certainly probable) that Google et al obtained/devised their technology before Apple in 2008 or not, in the US as I understand it, patent pending does not technically protect the filer, but regardless of that the intent of patents is that you are to actively develop the product or process or otherwise have a granted patent and/or already a product on the market.

But even regardless of that, before Google did it, it was a stupidly obvious way to have a phone unlock mechanism.

Prior art, failure to develop on patent filed and produce a marketable product, patent not granted before competition went to market, blatantly obvious.

But that all counts for nothing. USPTO will grant it. It will go to court Apple vs Samsung (never Google), Obama will comment that Apple is good for US and Samsung bad, Apple will win, Samsung pay Apple for a feature from Google that was never stolen from Apple in the first place for an obvious idea that wasn't patented correctly and Apple hadn't developed until way after the competition had. All perfectly fair in the land of the free.

The patent system has its theoretical benefits, but in general the whole system is so corrupt it would be far better to scrap patents entirely until someone comes up with a better one.

Re: Deja vu?

Re: Deja vu?

That's fine, 'cos it's not what the patent is about.

The patent is for a couple of things, first deciding if someone is sat in front of the device but not actively using it (reading a book, watching a movie for example) and having the device not do things like switching the display off and second, if someone is in front of the device then modifying the behaviour depending on them being an "authorised user" or not.

In other words, if you give your device to someone to watch a movie (or whatever), the device won't then go about showing them all your incoming messages or allow them access to your photographs or the device settings.

It's quite similar to what the XBOne does with Skype once set up, if it recognises one of the configured Skype users in the room when a call comes in it can bring up an incoming call to be answered, but if they're not present then it doesn't.

Apple gets away with this stuff because the USA does nothing to sort out their patent situations, rather than invent they would rather help their companies sue hundreds of millions out of other countries companies. To be honest, they should be a taught a lesson, its about time UK companies started to get ridiculous patents so that they can sue US companies for hundreds of millions or stop trading the UK. Maybe then they will realise something needs sorting.

HUH?

Re: HUH?

I think his point was that UK companies need to start taking out ridiculous patents in the US so they can shaft US companies... they can't take out ridiculous patents in the UK because out courts would throw them out, as has been proven with Apples ridiculous design patent, rounded corners? way too much prior art!

Re: HUH?

Indeed that was pretty much my point, but i was actually saying that the UK should allow those patents here for a while, so that we show the USA how stupid they are when they get sued for millions in our courts, just like the US likes to do with other countries companies.

Is a pin more secure though, not really...

Thief mugs you, grabs your phone, forces you to give him your pin for him to unlock it and then quickly disables the pin. If you are willing to look at the phone for him to unlock it, then you are going to be equally willing to give him your phone.

Filed March 6, 2008

Clearly others filed for patents on facial recognition earlier, probably not for unlocking a mobile device but perhaps for say unlocking a laptop using the built in webcam.

No comments on the merits of this patent, but you can't use the "Android phones did it first, that's prior art" as an argument, since there were exactly zero Android phones for sale when this patent was filed, nor can you claim Apple is copying Android if they do choose to implement it someday.

Seems a bit unlikely they will implement it since they've already thrown in with touch ID, though I suppose doing both facial recognition and fingerprint recognition would raise the bar to some degree for someone trying to bypass the protection since they'd now have to fool two (albeit neither are terribly difficult to fool) separate systems to do so.

Re: Filed March 6, 2008

The priority date on Google Patents for that one is Dec 25 2007, for Apple's is Jan 3 2008. However, Google says the "priority date is only an estimate", so it isn't clear from the available information which patent would take precedence (if they even have overlapping claims)

You've been duped by The Registers default melodrama setting. Reading the first independent claim it is more specific than face unlock. It relates to taking an action in response to incomming communication plus face authentication. So one application is to only show text message notifications, or incomming call numbers on the lock screen, when it can "see" it is the owner's fizzog looking at it.

Great for cheating spouses, as I understand the number one reason for getting caught is the untimely appearance of text message notifications.

Re: jealous spouse

True, I take that back. If a man has his wife sitting next to him watching TV and then a text message comes in and he sidles to one side before looking at his phone, I wouldn't rate his chances too highly.